Take This Waltz (2011)

“Is that that Seth Rogen guy? What’s he doing?”

“I think he’s… acting.”

“Acting? You mean actually giving a performance without using immature fart or stoner humor as a crutch to compensate for an apparent lack of talent? Well, I’ll be… Do miracles never cease?”

Seth Rogen is, indeed, quite good in this. The scene where he expresses, in various takes, his shock and horror at his wife’s infidelity is revelatory. Overall, though, “Take This Waltz” is so-so, marred by a lack of likable characters and consistent dialogue.

I there’s one thing you can say about this movie, it’s that it doesn’t glorify the act of adultery in any way. Bored housewife Margot (Michelle Williams, who gives a very nice performance here) engages in cutie pie antics and baby talk with her husband, Lou (Seth Rogan,) but longs for passion and intimacy.

When Margot meets Daniel (Luke Kirby,) a handsome artist, sparks fly almost immediately. As it turns out (damn you, fate!,) Daniel lives right next door to Margot and Lou’s place, and temptation for indiscretion may be too much to resist. But what are the consequences for such an act?

I was underwhelmed by the dialogue here… sometimes it was really good, and sometimes it was cringe-worthy. It felt like the movie was divided into two different worlds- one where intelligent characters say intelligent things, and one where a verbal expression comes directly out of a third-rate sitcom.

The relationship between Lou and Margot was interesting. I could neither fully support it, nor deny it’s moments of comfort and familiarity. I can understand Margot’s need for a more intellectually stimulating relationship (as any reasonably intelligent person would presumably have,) as many of the ‘tender moments’ between them were saccharine or just plain icky.

However, we don’t really see a side of Daniel that allows us to understand Margot’s prompt crisis. In fact, some of the dialogue was just as vomit-inducing, and the scary thing is, I’m not even sure it was meant to be. For the most part, the characters were more exasperating then likable.

This would be a much better movie if not for the dives in quality of dialogue. “Take This Waltz”‘s acting is both fresh and powerful, as is it’s refusal to slap itself with a happy ending. However, I have difficulty recommending it and will, sighing, present my ambivalent review.

Oz the Great and Powerful (2013)

I know I’m completely in the minority here, but I am not a big fan of the classic “The Wizard of Oz” movie. No, I don’t get nostalgic about it, It’s not a big part of my childhood, and I don’t understand why other people, including my mother, make such a big flippin’ deal about it. In my opinion, it’s a watered-down, sentimentalized adaptation of a good book with a cop out ending (it was all a dream, really?!)

That said, not giving a hoot about the original makes it easier for me to enjoy this reimagined prequel, which, despite lukewarm critical reception, was well-received by me and my family. There are a fair amount of flaws- James Franco’s somewhat over-the-top performance as the titular wizard, as well as some forced humor, come to mind, but for every lame joke there is an effective one, there are delightful characters and genuine emotion, and damn it, the CGI-generated colors and backdrops look so dang pretty on the big-screen TV.

Oscar (James Franco) is a flim-flam man operating in Kansas as a ‘magician,’ smooth-talking young girls, and lacking appreciation for his partner Frank (Zach Braff) at every turn. After a particularly poor show, Oz is blown away in a hot air balloon by a twister and (segue from black-and-white into color, as a nod to the original) lands in the radiantly beautiful but potentially deadly land of the as-yet unnamed Oz.

No sooner as he landed there than Oscar meets Theodora (Mila Kunis,) a wide-eyed witch who falls for his charms. Theodora believes Oskar is there to fulfill a prophecy that will bring peace to a land plagued by a wicked witch. Lured by the promise of gold and riches, ‘Oz’ leads Theodora on to believing he is the chosen one, and is aided by a strong-willed and somewhat annoying china girl (voiced by Joey King) and cute n’ furry bellhop monkey Finley (also voiced by Braff) on an epic quest where being a epic-scale bullshitter might just be the thing that makes Oz the man for the job.

In true ‘Oz’ form, people from Franco’s Kansas life reoccur in different forms in the land of Oz. Among these are Glinda the Good (Michelle Williams,) who appears to be the double of Oz’s old flame Annie who he can’t admit he loves, Frank the assistant AKA Finley the monkey, and a wheelchair-bound girl from Kansas (King) who is the voice of the orphaned china doll.

James Franco is a mix of appealing and charismatic-enough and hammy, pulling potentially cramp-inducing smiles and not above scenery-chewing. Rachel Weisz and Mila Kunis are appealing as beautiful witch sisters. Michelle Williams, who is typically a wonderful actress pulls a performance similar to that of Anne Hathaway in Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland” that is so wishy-washy it makes you go so what? Williams is not bad, as Hathaway was, but seems to be trying too little just as Franco is trying too hard.

This film is done by Sam Raimi, the man behind the “Spider-Man” and “Evil Dead” trilogies. And do you know what? I think for the most part he does a good job. Nothing beats hearing your little sister’s delighted laughs at a certain scene reverberate across an empty theater, and she wasn’t alone in her enjoyment. “Oz” is no masterpiece, but it’s funny and cute and it might just behoove you to ignore the critic’s opinion on this one.

The Station Agent (2003)

Pensive and deliberately slow-paced, “The Station Agent” was a movie that definitely improved for me upon another viewing. It was the movie that brought Peter Dinklage into the spotlight before “Game of Thrones” made him a star. Dinklage is a dwarf, so it will come as no surprise to you that good roles are hard for him to come by regardless of what a good actor he may be (and is.) Compared to his more disposable roles like “Elf” and “Underdog,” “The Station Agent” stands as a surprisingly good indie film, and Dinklage, as well as his co-stars Patricia Clarkson and Bobby Cannavale, give the project all they’ve got.

Gut-wrenching ableism is alive and well in the people who surround Fin (Dinklage,) a reserved young dwarf whose equally hard to read friend and fellow train enthusiast Henry (Paul Benjamin) dies suddenly, leaving him property in a middle-of-nowhere New Jersey town. Fin, who is subject to constant prejudice from ignorant a-holes, just wants to be left alone, but bereaved mom Olivia (Clarkson) and loquacious Cuban-American hot dog vendor Joe (Cannavale) try and begin to succeed to draw him out of his shell (but only after Olivia almost carelessly runs Fin over with her car- twice(!)

“The Station Agent” is almost as low-key as it’s protagonist and doesn’t resort to cheap sentimentality or maudlin counter-stereotyping of the disabled to make it’s point. Michelle Williams, who has always been good at straddling both indie and big-budget productions, is featured as a lonely librarian who flirts with Fin, much to his befuddlement. Fin is not a martyr or a bafflingly quirky little person with a heart of gold. Fin himself says it best “It’s funny how people see me and treat me, since I’m really just a simple, boring person.” Many people are astonishingly nasty to him, either out of cruelty or ignorance, and he’s learned to build up walls and avoid getting hurt.

“The Station Agent” is tender and funny without exploiting the foibles of it’s characters. The movie is best suited for people who have reasonable attention spans, as it is sometimes painfully slow, but the sharp and bright-eyed observations of it’s characters make it worth the watch. It’s a great showcase for the talents of both Patricia Clarkson and Peter Dinklage, BEFORE he was ‘Half-Man’ Tyrion Lannister. I also feel that the later film “An Insignificant Harvey” ripped this off to some extent. People who love subdued indie movies will like this a lot. It’s slight yet affecting, and touches the viewer’s hearts without using implausible melodrama or deceit to get it’s way.

Wendy and Lucy (2008)

This movie is not for everyone. Curious art-indie buffs, you know who you are. Others, look elsewhere. “Wendy and Lucy” is ‘real’ in such a way that it will delight a certain audience and bore the pants off everyone else.

Drifter Wendy (Michelle Williams,) camping out in Oregon on her way to find work in Alaska, travels alone except for her beloved dog, Lucy. So when Lucy goes missing in a small podunk Oregon town, Wendy vows not to leave until she finds her best friend and traveling companion.

Invested in her plight is a kind, otherwise unnamed Security Guard (Wally Dalton) who doesn’t seem to do much work but instead gives her advice and comfort while she tries to find her dog. Wendy comes into contact with other people, some helpful, some detrimental, and in the end must make a painful and difficult choice.

Although the grainy imagery can be a little frustrating, “Wendy and Lucy” is a touching, and above all, real little tale. It’s the kind of film that doesn’t have a hook, but wins us over with it’s true-to-life characters and situations, and makes us wonder what’s going to happen.

Michelle Williams is extremely convincing as flawed protagonist Wendy, and Lucy is a very cute and charming canine. This is the kind of movie people will argue has no ‘point.’ Since when does a film have to have a lesson, a glossy twist ending, or an revelation at before the end credits?

Isn’t a depiction of real, believable people and honest plot developments enough to to keep the audience watching? Since when did we become a legion of people who need a robot, a superhero, farting animated animals, or a masked killer to keep us invested in a story? Maybe I sound pretentious. But I can’t help but wonder if peoples’ interest in the movies is regressing.

I’ve seen Michelle Williams in two movies recently. “Take This Waltz” had its moments, but was also often glib and sitcom-ish, despite a painfully effective ending. “Wendy and Lucy,” the more effective of the two films, was never unbelievable and never simplistic, a testament to the power of kitchen sink realism in film.

“Wendy and Lucy” also excels in the way that it portrays poverty without the morbid vision of filth and decay many movies strive for. Overall, it’s more “Winter’s Bone” than “Requiem for a Dream,” and delivers pathos and sympathy rather than cheap shocks.

Not that it doesn’t have tense moments, such as when Wendy sleeps in the woods and comes face to face with an unexpected intruder. It just doesn’t overplay its hand trying to be disgusting and gratuitous, and portraying Williams as a wretched drifting waif. I hope you see it.

Rating-
8.0/10